I am looking at buying a new scope. Right now I have a Leupold VX-II 3-9x40. I have no complaints about the scope, I just want a better one. I am looking at buying either the Leupold VX-III or a Trijicon. I need to know which is better at low light conditions because I have no way of comparing them both before I buy. Any help would be great. Thanks

I don't want to spend the money on the Zeiss. The only reason I am leaning on the Leupold is the customer service and the fact that my VX-II has been a great scope. Also I have heard that the Trijicon's fibers will lose their capabilities after some time. I don't want to buy the scope if the fibers won't glow after a certain time and I can't send it back and have it fixed. That may not be the case and you may be able to send it back for repair...I just don't know. Thanks for the replies also...

Trijicon has fiber optic and tritium which is a radioactive gas. Over a period of about 15 years tritium goes from bright to dead. Trijicon can replace the tritium pill but the fiber optic should last a lifetime and work as long as there is any ambient light. Tritium is for total darkness. Illuminated Leupolds use a battery and you can replace the battery yourself but you have to turn them on you dont ever have to turn on the Trijicon. Also like other batteries there is always the chance a battery can leak and damage the electronics so its a toss up as far as which will last longer. On Leupolds I remove the battery when storing the rifle. I prefer the Trijicon and I have both.

"Always do the right thing, just because it is the right thing to do".Bobby Paul DohertyTexas Ranger

I don't want to spend the money on the Zeiss. The only reason I am leaning on the Leupold is the customer service and the fact that my VX-II has been a great scope. Also I have heard that the Trijicon's fibers will lose their capabilities after some time. I don't want to buy the scope if the fibers won't glow after a certain time and I can't send it back and have it fixed. That may not be the case and you may be able to send it back for repair...I just don't know. Thanks for the replies also...

Ok guy, you lost me right there at the first sentence.I just double checked the prices before typing this reply.The 3x9x40 Zeiss Conquest is less money than several versions of the 2.5x8 Leupold, the nearest scope VXIII to your 3x9. It is 175 dollar's less than the Trijicon whose glass is almost as good as the Zeiss. Zeiss customer service and warrenty are every bit as good as Leupold.

To reiterate on the 30mm tube issue, it does nothing for light transmission. Though, a lot of the "brightest" scopes do have 30mm tubes. It is the quality of the glass and coatings of those scopes that make them better in low light. This has been covered at length here.http://opticstalk.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=3828

I'm not getting the 3-9x40, I want a 50mm and more magnification like maybe a 3.5-10 or a 4.5-14. Everytime I looked at the Zeiss they were always way more but I was looking at the Diavari, I didn't the conquest. So I assume your suggestion would be a Zeiss over the Trijicon or Leupold for best low light transmission? And to go with the Conquest?

I can't say anything about the Trijicon, but I've owned or used most of the Leupold and Zeiss scopes. I've had Leupold VXII 3-9x33, 3-9x33 EFR, 3-9x40, VXIII 3.5-10x40, 4.5-14x40 and 4.5-14x50. The 4.5-14s were among the worst scopes I've ever used, the rest were good scopes for their purposes. Low-light capability is just "get-by" with all of them.

The cheaper Nikon Buckmaster series is brighter than all of them.... I had more love for a Bushnell 4-12 Trophy ($175) than the 4.5-14 Leupolds...

I have a Zeiss 4.5-14x44 Conquest which is a great scope, much better than any of the Leupolds. I think Zeiss has the best reticles of any scope, I love the mil-dot and the Z-plex, the Zeiss reticles are etched and stay "coal-black" no matter what. The only issue I have with the conquest line is the fuzzy edges you get on high power, it seems as if they spent more effort polishing the center of the lenses, and it is more apparent on the 4.5-14x than the 3.5-10x.

I also have some Kahles CL scopes which I have found to be far better than anything mentioned above (Zeiss reticles still win though). There are some really good prices on them right now, although I know nothing about customer service or USA contact with the company...

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot create polls in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forum